Fandom Forums - View Single Post - ALL CAPS emails lead to woman's firing
View Single Post
Old 09-27-2009, 01:59 PM   #26
Mal
Scotch
 
Mal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,090
Thanks: 12,723
Thanked 10,818 Times in 3,844 Posts
Mal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of lightMal is a glorious beacon of light
Re: ALL CAPS emails lead to woman's firing

Quote:
Originally Posted by uchihademon91 View Post
well since the american standard code for information exchange says that all caps symbolizes shouting, then i guess the majority sees it as shouting. that makes sense. just cuz they think that it SHOULD represent shouting doesnt mean the majority see's it that way.
Because I'm a nice guy, and like to repute everything in it's best possible form, I'll pretend your argument made sense in some way or another: ASCII is for character encoding only. There are no "rules" for ASCI; it does not "say" anything concerning spelling, grammar, punctuation or anything related to any rules of any language. Tthere is absolutely no regulatory group of any kind that says "All Caps means shouting." Nobody thinks that full capitalization of a message "should" represent shouting, they accept that it does represent shouting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uchihademon91 View Post
again the opinion a vs opinion c thing. still not following you with this. the court said that the workplace was wrong. i didnt say that. thats what happened. im not saying that the court was 100% in the right, but thats what happened. you keep saying that im the one whos saying this, but thats what happened. i dont see your argument here. you keep saying im being logically fallacious, but thats what happened, im just repeating it. so how am i being logically fallacious by repeating the scenario that actually happened. its not my arguement, thats the way it happened.
The fact that something happened is irrelevant to your fallacious argument. Let's go back to my example:

P1) Albert says '3' is the number "three"
P2) Courtney says '3' is the 7th moon of Jupiter
P3) Courtney is infallible
---------------------------------------------------------
C) Therefore Albert is wrong.

P1-3 are the "premises". In any valid argument, if all the premises are true then the conclusion is also true.

P1) Albert says '3' is the number "three"
Even if what Albert says is false, this premise remains true, because what Albert says is independent of what actually is. In this case, however, surely we can agree that Albert is correct.
This Premise is representative of Opinion A - that of the business - on the assumption that the business is correct. The fact that the business' decision wasn't necessarily correct has no impact on the analogy.

P2) Courtney says '3' is the 7th moon of Jupiter
This premise, like the first, is true regardless of what the facts are, because this is what Courtney is saying. Obviously, '3' is not the 7th moon of Jupiter.
This premise is representative of Opinion C - that of the court, deciding that Opinion A is wrong and substituting their own answer.

P3) Courtney is infallible
This is your assumption, that the court's decision is the be all and end all. Your argument was that the business was wrong because the court said so, basically: The court can't possibly be wrong, so obviously the business is wrong.

C) Therefore Albert is wrong.
The conclusion is the same as your own conclusion, that the business (Albert) was wrong - regardless of what they had done - simply because the court (Courtney) said so, and is believed to be infallible.

I'm assuming you still don't get it, so let's try another analogy: First, the basic idea of the fallacy: "You can't use evidence of a certain type to disprove evidence of the same type."

Person A argues "God exists because I can feel that He does."
Person B argues "God does not exist, because I cannot feel anything."

Obviously, "feeling" isn't any kind of evidence, but we'll ignore that fact for the sake of the analogy.
Person B has not disproven Person A. Still don't believe me? Let's make it a little more "real":

Person A argues "I believe Scott exists because I have seen him."
Person B argues "I believe that Scott does not exist because I have not seen him."


Seriously, if you don't see the problem with any of the arguments given above, you should just give up entirely. I mean, arguing anything. Ever.
Mal is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Mal For This Useful Post:
Miburo (09-27-2009)